United States v Zubaydah decided (State secrets privilege upheld)

Politics
1

Opinion of the Court in UNITED STATES v. HUSAYN, AKA ZUBAYDAH, ET AL.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts II–B–2 and III. ROBERTS, C. J., joined that opinion in full, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT, JJ., joined as to all but Part II–B–2, KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Parts III and IV and the judgment of dismissal, and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined Part IV. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which ALITO, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which BARRETT, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

This is a cluster ■■■■■ as you can see by the blurb above.

:rofl:

The bottom line is that Zubaydah’s request for discovery regarding CIA black sites has been ordered to be dismissed, the Supreme Court accepting the government’s invocation of the State Secrets privilege.

Not at all unexpected.

1 Like
2

Appears to be 7 to 2 for the bottom line judgement, with an interesting combination of Gorsuch and Sotomayor in dissent.

3

We have conducted an internal investigation and found nothing wrong. lol

3 Likes
4

Oh God, I’m having flashbacks to law school.

5

which part or parts ended up with a majority? does anyone know?

6

I don’t think any portion of the opinion got an outright majority.

The only majority was for the actual judgement of upholding the state secrets privilege, that being 7 to 2.

Part I of the Opinion I think got a majority as well, but the remaining portions of the Opinion were all minority.

7

The lawsuit is Poland.

A US official could be ordered to testify in Poland if they travel to that country. They might also be detained in other EU countries.

8

I am new to this, but my understanding is that Gitmo CIA “black sites” exist because some 1960-70s era court decisons were badly worded.

My understanding is if US troops take a war prisoner if that prisoner sets foot on US soil he has the right of habeus corpus has to be put on trial complete with eyewitneses etc. or he has to be freed.

That’s bad enough in the cse of 17,000 Germans surrendering in uniform at Remagen
Now imagine five armed men, no uniform no arm sash, are captured in a house in fallujah, and five more at the next house, and two in the alley, and three on the roof down the street Gonna put them on trial? On US soil they get the right of habeus corpus ya know? Gonna bring in witnesses to make a postive ID on every one of them?

My understanding is that, and not the cost of flying, is the reason the US does not bring its war prisoners back to US soil.